Assisted Lifeguard Technology Solution (Drowning Detection)

This tender offers a clear description of a drowning detection solution with a reasonable estimated value and duration. However, it lacks detailed documentation and specific evaluation criteria, impacting completeness and clarity.

The tender appears generally compliant with standard procurement procedures, including a clear CPV code and open procedure. Deadlines are provided, and the organization is clearly specified. The absence of reported disputes contributes to a moderate score. The main limitation is the lack of explicit information regarding regulatory compliance specific to the technology.

The core requirement for an 'Assisted Lifeguard Technology Solution (Drowning Detection)' is clearly stated in the title and description. The AI-extracted requirements list key areas for suppliers to address. However, the lack of available document content and specified evaluation criteria significantly hinders the clarity of how proposals will be assessed.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are present. The submission deadline and contract start date are also specified. However, the critical absence of accessible tender document content means that crucial details regarding mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission requirements are not readily available for review.

The tender is an open procedure, promoting broad participation. The estimated value is disclosed, and criteria like 'Divided into Parts' suggest an attempt at structured procurement. The primary concern is the lack of explicitly stated objective evaluation criteria, which can sometimes lead to perceived bias. However, without specific tailored requirements for a single company, fairness remains relatively high.

The tender provides essential details like the contract start date and duration. The estimated value is given in EUR, which is practical for international bidders. However, the 'Issues' section notes 'No e-submission', which is a significant drawback in modern procurement. The availability of document URLs is not confirmed, further impacting ease of access.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, value, and dates are consistently populated. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. The contract start date (2026-08-17) is logically after the submission deadline (2026-04-17), indicating good temporal consistency.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded. This lack of integration of sustainability considerations leads to a low score in this category.